Abstract

Background For the first 5 years of the UK primary care pay for performance scheme, the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), quality
indicators were introduced without piloting. However, in 2009, potential new indicators were piloted in a nationally representative
sample of practices. This paper describes an in-depth exploration of family physician, nurse and other primary-care practice
staff views of the value of piloting with a particular focus on unintended consequences of 13 potential new QOF indicators.

Results Almost all interviewees emphasised the value of piloting in terms of an opportunity to identify unintended consequences of
potential QOF indicators in ‘real world’ settings with staff who deliver day-to-day care to patients. Four particular types
of unintended consequences were identified: measure fixation, tunnel vision, misinterpretation and potential gaming. ‘Measure
fixation,’ an inappropriate attention on isolated aspects of care, appeared to be the key unintended consequence. In particular,
if the palliative care indicator had been introduced without piloting, this might have incentivised poorer care in a minority
of practices with potential harm to vulnerable patients.

Conclusions It is important to identify concerns and experiences about unintended consequences of indicators at an early stage when there
is time to remove or adapt problem indicators. Since the UK government currently spends over £1 billion each year on QOF,
the £150 000 spent on each piloting cohort (0.0005% of the total QOF budget) appears to be good value for money.

Footnotes

Funding This study was supported by a grant from the Department of Health.

Competing interests SMC and HEL are contracted to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to provide advice on removal of indicators
and pilot new indicators for the Quality and Outcomes Framework.

Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the North West Liverpool Central Committee 09/H1001/74.